I’m excited to reveal the first expansion for Finspan, Sharks & Reefs!

Finspan: Sharks & Reefs adds to the variety of the core game with a focus on sharks and fish that live among coral reefs. This expansion introduces new coral reef habitats to your ocean mat and more incredible sharks—with fearsome new abilities!

Players can now nurture colorful coral reefs in each of their ocean’s three dive sites. Healthy reefs enable you to play powerful reef fish, unlock fish abilities, and score bonuses at the end of the game. Meanwhile, sharks scatter schools of young (to form even more schools elsewhere) and leave behind food scraps that any fish in your ocean can consume.

Sharks & Reefs is designed by Michael O’Connell, illustrated by Ana María Martínez, Catalina Martínez, & Mesa Schumacher, developed by David Gordon and Elizabeth Hargrave, and features an Automa solo mode by David Studley. The Finspan core game is required to play the Sharks & Reefs expansion, and the full rulebook is available now.

You can see larger versions of these slides on Instagram.

Over the next few days we will share stories about the creation of Finspan: Sharks & Reefs in the design diary series on our website, in the Finspan Facebook group, and on BoardGameGeek. Here is today’s post:

April 16: The Inception of Finspan: Sharks & Reefs and Product Design

Here’s designer Michael O’Connell with some Finspan backstory and an introduction to this expansion:

When David Gordon and I designed Finspan, we weren’t sure how it would be received. How would the world react to a third -span title, especially one released just one year after Wyrmspan? We had known for years that we wanted to do a game like this. There is even a topic on the Stonemaier Games Discord server that’s still called “aquatic Wingspan,” where folks within the company post regularly about the game. But would the public embrace it? Did fish hold the same fascination for people as birds and dragons?

Of course, Finspan has done everything we hoped it would. As with the other -span titles, it has helped bring new players into the hobby. Many content creators have tried to articulate why all three games deserve a place on your shelf. Each has its own identity. Finspan is the friendly one. Open hands, so everyone at the table knows what you’re working with. Abilities that help other players as well as yourself. Fascinating fish facts on the cards that make you want to read them aloud. Components that are colorful and a tactile delight—especially if you pick up the “squishy eggs” upgrade pack. The goal has always been that Finspan be genuinely inviting. A game where players can help each other, where the rules are intuitive, and where you aren’t asked to make a lot of small decisions.

We never wanted players to feel stuck or confused about how to get the resources they need. Need new fish? Dive here. Need eggs? Dive here. Need young or a school? Dive here. It’s always clear how to progress. The only thing you need to worry about is how to optimize that progression. That’s where the game’s depth lives. (Pun intended.) Finspan’s intricacies reveal themselves as you play, rather than hitting you all at once. And the game is forgiving. Don’t like your engine? Consume that fish that gives you nothing but points with a larger one that has an IF ACTIVATED ability. There is always a way forward.

Once you know how to play the game, my hope is that you never need to return to the rulebook. The player aids, the achievement board, the ocean mat—those should be enough. I don’t know if that’s possible to achieve with every group of players, but it’s what I strive for, and it shapes every decision I make about what goes into an expansion.

So. Sharks & Reefs.

When Jamey and I began talking about designing the Finspansions, we had the typical discussions around what players might want to see, what things might be improved about the game, and what things might be accentuated. However, in the case of Finspan, there was an additional consideration: Many, perhaps even most Finspan players are not typically the people who buy expansions. I’m guessing a lot of them don’t even know that expansions to board games are a thing. Players who buy expansions often want more to think about. But, with Finspan, we’ve tried to limit “more for the sake of more.”

And so, Sharks & Reefs is not just a “more cards” expansion. It adds a dimension to the game without the burden of exponential complexity. The coral overlay and tokens and new reef fish enhance the tactical and strategic choices available to you on nearly every turn. The sharks feel splashy and reward a well-timed turn, but they don’t require you to set your brain on fire to play them effectively. I’ve taught the game to brand new players with Sharks & Reefs included from the start, and it wasn’t dramatically more difficult than teaching the base game alone, which is exactly what I intended.

We designed Finspan (the core game) at the same time that Connie Vogelmann was designing Wyrmspan. Connie finished first, and so Wyrmspan was released first. (Yeah, she was faster than David Gordon and I combined.) But that gave us a year-long window to think ahead—to design the mats and the base game rules with future expansions already in mind while still giving our 100% focus on making the base game a complete package.

I started work on the first two expansions while Wyrmspan was still being released and while the base game of Finspan was still in development (though we waited a few months after Finspan was released before finalizing the first expansion so we could learn from public feedback). This let me make choices that allow future content to slot in organically. The deepwater row in the base game is a good example of this. It started as an expansion idea, but playtesters loved those nightmare-fuel abyssal fish, and so we pulled the deepwater row into the base game to make room for more of them. That’s why there are three more slots for cards than in the other -span titles.

We couldn’t anticipate exactly how popular Finspan would be, but we knew we’d want to create multiple expansions for it. So, I thought carefully from the start about how they would work together. I want each expansion to be easy to learn on its own, and I want them to integrate cleanly with each other without overwhelming the players.

***

Michael has some fun stories in the next few days that delve into the gameplay of Sharks & Reefs, and I wanted to briefly mention a product design element: In the expansion we included a large card tray designed to fit in the Finspan box next to the original tray. The new tray includes 4 slots for stacks of cards and a central area to hold tokens. Our hope in supplying this tray in the first expansion is that it will hold all components for the core game, this expansion, and any future expansions.

You can follow along and get a launch notification on May 13 by clicking here.

***

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.

Read more →

Print and Play Bastelecke

Was habe ich gespielt?
boardgamearena.com: Die Burgen von Burgund, Postcards, Tipperary, Perfect Words
Blood on the Clocktower
Trekking: Reise durch die Zeit
VOLT
Piña Coladice
Cat Trick

Podcast Hinweis

Bluesky – @vintersphrost.bsky.social
Mastodon – @vintersphrost@brettspiel.space
Boardgamearena.com – vintersphrost
Yucata.de – vintersphrost
tutti.ch: https://www.tutti.ch/de/seller?id=2079528265671090841
Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/vintersphrost/
YouTube Hörspiel Einspieler – https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCER_eNjl0R-Rzev5IMG2uufJSbXt01Mp

Have you ever bought a mystery box, a blind booster pack, or a subscription with an unknown assortment inside?

In the early days of COVID, Megan and I signed up for Universal Yums, a treat box subscription service. Every month we would open a new box together and do a taste test of the various sweet and salty treats, and we’d often pair it with a thematically related movie. It was a delight.

I’ve also purchased my fair share of Magic booster packs over the years, most often to draft with friends, not to collect, sell, or compete in tournaments. I can’t deny the thrill of opening a booster and looking through the contents for the first time.

Yet that’s probably the extent to which I’ve engaged with mystery boxes. I don’t like most surprises, and I’m selective about the things I buy–quality and specificity over quantity.

Recently I asked livecast viewers what they thought about mystery boxes. Reactions were mostly mixed at best, and many were fairly negative, with people talking about how blind buys play into gambling compulsions and how they can cheapen a brand.

However, many people also acknowledged that they have enjoyed at least one mystery box (across a wide range of categories): Specific IPs they enjoy, category-specific subscription boxes (tea, chocolate, etc), and when they were just starting a new hobby.

So I’m curious what you think: Have you ever had a good experience with a mystery box, blind booster pack, or surprise subscription?

***

Also read:

• Can a Publisher Offer Rarity Without Using FOMO Tactics?
• Is There Value in One-of-a-Kind Products and Rewards?
• “Ancient” Artifacts as a Marketing Strategy
• The One Ring and Extreme Rarity in Games

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.

Print and Play Bastelecke

Was habe ich gespielt?
boardgamearena.com: Dice Missions, Perfect Words
Fantasy Ink
Stapelsalat
Piratatak
Schatz der Mumie
Strike
Formidabel
Just One
Siderische Konfluenz
Pili Pili

Podcast Hinweis
Lieblingsgegner Podcast
Simon & Simone
https://lieblingsgegner.podigee.io/

Bluesky – @vintersphrost.bsky.social
Mastodon – @vintersphrost@brettspiel.space
Boardgamearena.com – vintersphrost
Yucata.de – vintersphrost
tutti.ch: https://www.tutti.ch/de/seller?id=2079528265671090841
Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/vintersphrost/
YouTube Hörspiel Einspieler – https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCER_eNjl0R-Rzev5IMG2uufJSbXt01Mp

In S. J. Simon’s book, “Why you lose at Bridge” he invents a character “Futile Willy.” Futile Willy isn’t bad (per se) but his defining feature is making bidding decisions that have limited rewards, but huge risks. Playing in a two session event with Roxie, our opponents are mostly what I deem “experienced novices” (playing for years, know a bit of bidding, but have not progressed far) mixed with intermediates. Perhaps two pairs are of similar caliber.

There are many ways to judge experience; one is knowing when to compete. And when not to compete.

Experts love …. LOVE … to get in the bidding, but also know when to shut up.

Example #1

I pick up something like xx AJxx Kxx JTxx and it goes 1D by Partner and 1S on my right.

I make a (negative) double, LHO passes, Partner bids 2C and RHO rebids two spades.

My negative double only guaranteed hearts, not clubs (I have five hearts with a hand too weak to bid); I actually have four clubs. So (despite having no extra values) a raise is reasonable because a) you never want to let them play at the two level unless they are in a misfit¹ and b) my hand is mostly “working”. The King of diamonds is probably golden given that partner has 8 or more minor cards, aces are always nice. (If I had points in spades, I’d be much more content to defend).

LHO hems and haws and then bids 3 Spades. Roxie and I are done, and I am happy to have an easy safe lead of the jack of clubs. (I could lead a diamond, to be sure, but it’s matchpoints).

The final auction

LHO CHO RHO Me
     1D  1S X
  P  2C  2S 3C
 3S  All Pass

Dummy is a massive surprise. Sure she has two spades, but also five clubs (Q9xxx)! Passing gets her an above average board, doubling gets a likely top and her actual bid gives her a terrible board. Afterwards neither partner and I could believe it.

Example #2

Later on I pick up a regular 1NT opening with something like S: Qx H: KJx D: KJxx C: AJxx.

Roxie responds 2 Hearts (a Jacoby Transfer, indicating spades) but before I bid RHO doubles (showing good hearts).

Roxie and I haven’t discussed it (at least — I’m not sure we have) but typically I play that accepting the transfer over a double confirms three (or more) in that suit. With only two spades I can pass, and partner can redouble to “re-transfer” or bid spades herself. (It probably doesn’t matter on this hand, but if she had the king of hearts instead of me…).

So I pass. Roxie then bids …. 4NT.

This is a quantitative slam try. I am at a minimum, so normally I’d pass … but my hearts are well placed. If RHO has AQxxx of hearts, I have two heart tricks, so my KJx of hearts is worth closer to six or seven points instead of four². Therefore, I bid six NT.

I get a surprise when Roxie shows up with Ax of Hearts. Was RHO doubling on Queen – sixth? Nope, just Qxxxx.

But in any case there is nothing to the play³ because LHO did not find the killing lead and instead led the suit partner had asked him to lead. Doubling on AQxxx and out is reasonable … you tell your partner what to lead. There’s a risk of getting redoubled (with KJTx or so behind you). but its an acceptable risk.

But with just a queen empty suit, the odds of a redouble (or other “bad luck” as in this hand) are high and do you really want partner to go out of his way to lead a heart?

Example #3

The most egregious example.

I pick up a strong NT, but I’m third to bid. Partner opens one club.

My hand is flat (4324) so the only issues are: A) do we have a major fit and B), does partner have extras.

I bid 1 Spade and partner rebids 1 NT. So the answers are A) No and B) No, therefore I’m bidding 3NT.

Except my RHO (who couldn’t bid over 1 Club) has doubled. They are vulnerable, we are not. 3NT is probably +400 to +460. We can get much, much more by defending. So, redouble.

Despite a slip up on our part, we get +500 easily for what should be a top (except that someone bid a hopeless slam and was allowed to make it). Without the slipup we easily beat the mere +990 for the non-vulnerable slam. What was RHO’s double? A semi-balanced ten count, after opener had fully described her hand. It would be one thing to double if I passed 1NT … then there would be an expectation points were (roughly) evenly divided.

In this case the double did nothing but offer me a fielder’s choice.

With us encountering three Futile Willys (or Wilhelminas), our mistakes merely turn tops into “almost tops”, so it’s a highly successful day.

1. And while they might be, nothing about my hand suggests so. Even if dummy has no spades, RHO’s spades are probably fine playing opposite a stiff, and partner’s spades and underneath them. ︎
2. KJx opposite xx is averages 1 trick (if honors are split) and gets 2 tricks 24% of the time and 0 tricks 24% of the time (when honors aren’t). So if KJx with no knowledge is one 4 points, KJx expecting both honors onside is worth more. (And 24% instead of 25% due to the Law of Vacant Spaces, which Wikipedia calls “Vacant Places” but OK) ︎
3. In fact, I missed a small risk-free line to make the overtrick; but it didn’t matter, because everyone else passed 4NT (assuming their partners even bid it). ︎

Read more →

For the last few years, I’ve been buying bar soap from a friend who makes custom soap as a hobby in the greater St. Louis area (Nerdy Bird Nest). In early 2025, after buying my latest batch, I had a wacky idea: What if we worked with Jenna to make soap that smelled like the themes for several of our games?

We already find a variety of ways to make game nights more immersive (thematic music, food, drinks, etc)–why not add to the immersion with soap that reminds us of the gritty landscape of Scythe or the vineyards of Bordeaux?

It seemed like a great fit for our series of silly-but-real April Fools products, and Jenna agreed…but she said it was already too late to have the soap ready in time for April 1, 2025. So we decided to plan ahead for 2026.

The extra time was a big help, as it gave Jenna time to experiment with different ingredients, fragrances, and colors. After a few months, she shared with me a total of 6 different bars that smelled and looked like Euphoria, Scythe, Finspan, Viticulture, Apiary, and Wingspan:

Making soap is just a hobby for Jenna, so I asked her for full honesty in regards to how many bars of soap she could comfortably make over the next few months and still have fun with the process. She said would be comfortable making 100 of each bar, which is far more than she’s ever made of even a single type of soap in the past.

So while Jenna made the soap (a process that is just as much about waiting for the soap to set as it is about mixing the ingredients), I collaborated with our graphic designer to design two sets of boxes. We decided to sell the soap in sets of 3 so we could reach more people (200 people instead of 100).

I looked into box manufacturers in the US, but I found the same thing I’ve found with various US manufacturers: Less customization, less personal, limited communication, odd scaling, and higher costs. In contrast, Panda made the process incredibly easy. They quickly printed the boxes and sent them to us, and I handed them off to Jenna at our monthly cookbook club.

I also looked into the possibility of shipping the soap from the US over to our fulfillment centers in Canada, Europe, and Australia. There were several key problems with that idea, though: The shipping would have significantly increased the price of the soap, it would have spread such a small quantity even thinner, and most importantly, each region has its own regulations and certifications for beauty products that added risk and expense. So I made the call to only offer the soap on our US webstore.

Real April Fools products are always a bit odd, as people generally assume they’re not real. However, enough people clicked through to our webstore on April 1 that the soap sold out in just over 10 minutes.

I genuinely never want to have such a limited stock of anything, but I think people understood that there was an individual human behind the creation of these soaps–Jenna is just one person, not a factory, and there truly was a limit to how many bars she could make. However, Jenna can make more, and if/when she does, she’ll share them on her Etsy store.

If you were among the 200 people who bought the soap on April 1, I look forward to hearing your thoughts upon receipt. For everyone else, what game world would you like to see as soap?

***

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.

Und sonst so
Play Store App im Closed Test
„Kleine Zeithelden“ Uhr Lern App für Kinder

Print and Play Bastelecke
Scoundrel
Scoundrel Poker Deck

Was habe ich gespielt?
boardgamearena.com: – – –
Fantasy Ink
Light Speed Arena
Stapelsalat
Boss Fighters QR

Podcast Hinweis

Bluesky – @vintersphrost.bsky.social
Mastodon – @vintersphrost@brettspiel.space
Boardgamearena.com – vintersphrost
Yucata.de – vintersphrost
tutti.ch: https://www.tutti.ch/de/seller?id=2079528265671090841
Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/vintersphrost/
YouTube Hörspiel Einspieler – https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCER_eNjl0R-Rzev5IMG2uufJSbXt01Mp

“The largest U.S. carriers seek to capture corporate travelers and affluent leisure passengers who are willing to pay more for comfort. Increasingly, airlines are betting on selling fewer seats at higher yields rather than packing planes more densely with standard economy passengers.” —NTD

Here’s how one might rewrite this quote if it were about tabletop crowdfunding:

“Tabletop publishers seek to capture affluent gamers and those who want to focus on fewer, deluxified games. Increasingly, publishers are betting on selling expensive games (lower total quantities) at higher yields rather than lower-priced games (higher total quantities) at lower margins.”

Two recent examples are Brass Pittsburgh and Slay the Spire: Downfall. Both campaigns are impeccably crafted and highly successful: Even just a few days in, they’ve raised close to $7 million combined.

If I wanted to pledge to the highest core levels for both campaigns ($425 for the game and expansion for Slay the Spire and $350 for all three Brass games), I would spend close to $800. Out of around 31,000 backers between the two campaigns, close to 3,000 people have already backed at those levels (around 10%). These top pledges have raised around $1 million out of the combined $7 million total (around 14%).

Clearly there is an audience for these top-tier reward levels, particularly for highly acclaimed games that have earned their value (Brass Birmingham is ranked #1 on BoardGameGeek; Slay the Spire is #18). Perhaps at least part of this stems from hobby gamers with bursting collections who want to focus on fewer, fancier games.

Unlike airlines, however, there isn’t limited space on a crowdfunding campaign–these publishers have found a way to serve more budget-conscious backers too. Roxley included a $79 reward for Brass Pittsburgh (821 backers) and Contention Games included an $84 reward (2325 backers) for the Downfall expansion.

Another example is Garden Club, which has a $39 level and a $69 level on Kickstarter now. Chris Couch Games can serve both budget-conscious backers who just want the game and wealthier backers who want everything.

Here’s my hope: Selling some premium, high-margin products can help publishers maintain lower prices for the masses.

What do you think? How do you feel as a consumer right now, and what would you like publishers to learn from these campaigns? Is there such thing as an economy that serves all types of people?

***

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.

Read more →

Every month, I update the progress chart on the News page of our website so anyone can see the current status of any Stonemaier project. There are 12 steps (some overlapping, some sequential) that define the process from design to retail release. If you’re curious about what each step entails, here’s a brief summary, along with the approximate timeframe for each.

1. Design (6-24 months): Take the game from an idea to something fun and functional. This includes prototyping and local playtesting. If you’re submitting the game to publishers instead of self-publishing, most of your responsibilities end here.
2. Art (3-6 months): Create the art for all components in the game, including (as needed) cards, tiles, boards, player mats, the box, etc. If there are miniatures, 3D modeling is also necessary.
3. Development (2-3 months): Make the game even more fun and functional by playing and honing the game. Focus on rules clarity, gameplay intuitiveness, and balance. This overlaps with blind playtesting.
4. Blind Playtesting (4-8 months): Send the files for the game to paid playtesters who assemble the game, learn it from the rules, and play it several times before reporting their experiences. Use those reports and data to update the game (ideally with support from the designer), then start another wave of blind playtesting.
5. Solo Design (3-5 months): Solo specialists (e.g., Automa Factory) craft the solo mode for the game based on the final rules/prototype. They also prototype it extensively, sometimes discovering new balance issues to address in the multiplayer game.
6. Graphic Design (3-4 months): Design the icons, layout, and user interface, then transfer all the content from the prototype into these templates. This also includes the proofreading and oversight process, with the graphic designer updating the files with each new batch of edits. Graphic design culminates in the graphic designer preparing the printer-ready files based on the manufacturer’s specs.
7. Pre-Production (1 month): The manufacturer reviews the final PDFs and tokens for any issues that might arise during production. Usually there’s some back and forth (digitally and via samples) until the digital proofs and components are approved by both parties. This culminates in the manufacturer sending a PPC (pre-production copy) to the publisher for them to test–this is a single copy of the game printed on its own.
8. Components (2 months): The manufacturer (and any third-party factories they outsource to) produces the diecuts for tokens and moulds for miniatures, as well as actually making those components at scale. They also prepare for the printing itself–for most printed components, the prep takes longer than the printing. Anything that needs to be glued takes longer (i.e., boards, player mats, and the box), as the paper needs time to dry properly to the cardboard.
9. Print & Assemble (1 month): Cards and rulebooks are printed en masse. Now, with all the components ready and in one place, they can finally be assembled into the game boxes and placed in cartons (they may also be palletized).
10. Freight Shipping (1-2 months): From factory to final destinations, the games go by truck to train to ship to train to truck until they arrive at warehouses around the world. This applies no matter where you make products–it’s a global economy. It’s at this time that we typically announce and start to market our products.
11. Launch & Fulfillment (1 month): This is specific to Stonemaier Games, as we don’t sell products until they have arrived (or are imminently arriving) at our fulfillment centers in the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia. The hardworking folks at these fulfillment centers then pack every order, pair it with the correct label, and send it out with many others via couriers.
12. Retail Release (1 month): While the webstore launch is in progress, distributors and the publisher gather orders from retailers. This is why it’s super helpful for you to let your store know what you want to buy from them–that way they can ensure they have a copy of the product just for you in time for the retail release day.

Not shown here is the reprint process, which starts a little before step 8 (usually there’s a least a few files in which we make tiny updates before making more of a product).

These are only brief summaries of the steps, but I’m happy to answer questions in the comments.

***

Also read:

• Board Game Supply Basics
• An Open Letter to Non-Gamer Journalists Researching Modern Tabletop Games
• How to Design a Tabletop Game
• The Hidden Job of Every Creator
• My Game Publishing Checklist

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.

Print and Play Bastelecke

Was habe ich gespielt?
boardgamearena.com: Toy Battle, Skara Brae
Light Speed Arena
Crisps!
Soviet Kitchen Unleashed
Pili Pili

Podcast Hinweis

Bluesky – @vintersphrost.bsky.social
Mastodon – @vintersphrost@brettspiel.space
Boardgamearena.com – vintersphrost
Yucata.de – vintersphrost
tutti.ch: https://www.tutti.ch/de/seller?id=2079528265671090841
Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/vintersphrost/
YouTube Hörspiel Einspieler – https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCER_eNjl0R-Rzev5IMG2uufJSbXt01Mp

With college basketball’s March Madness tournament underway, I’d like to announce a new experiment: The Tabletop Power Rankings.

I’ve always enjoyed subjective and objective rankings in sports (e.g., the weekly BCS rankings for college football and the Premier League standings in English football). I like checking in to see how different teams are moving up or down the rankings and to see how they are perceived.

I’ve also recently renewed my fascination with anticipation following last year’s article about the most-viewed tabletop YouTube videos. Since then, I’ve posted a monthly video showcasing my most anticipated games to play again.

The confluence of these two interests have now formed the Tabletop Power Rankings. The concept is a monthly reveal of the top 10 games (plus the top 5 Stonemaier games) that people are the most excited to play again after playing them at least once.

That last phrase is particularly important, as it places the emphasis on what we already have (and have firsthand experience with) instead of what we don’t have (and haven’t even played). As much as I enjoy the BGG Hotness, it’s typically filled with future releases.

I seeded the initial rankings based on a Stonemaier Ambassador survey, but now anyone can participate: here is the current 3-question voting and nomination link for the next month.

While the exact format might change, my plan is to post the overall top 10 each month along with a survey that replaces the 3 lowest voted games with the top 3 nominations from the previous month.

Overall Games (March 2026)

1. SETI
2. Galactic Cruise
3. Slay the Spire
4. Bomb Busters
5. Speakeasy

This will expand to a full top 10 starting in April. At that point I’ll add previous rankings and months on the rankings.

Stonemaier Games (March 2026)

1. Viticulture
2. Vantage
3. Wingspan
4. Scythe
5. Tapestry

Here’s what the initial ambassador survey looked like. I’ve since separated non-Stonemaier games from Stonemaier games and opened the survey to everyone.

I’ll reveal the new Tabletop Power Rankings the first Wednesday of each month on our website and on my anticipated games video.

I hope you choose to participate in this experiment (survey link)! If you have any ideas, suggestions, or questions, please let me know in the comments.

***

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.

Read more →

Print and Play Bastelecke

Was habe ich gespielt?
boardgamearena.com: Mountain Goats, Dice Missions, Trailblazers
Light Speed Arena
Carp City
13 Leaves
Köder

Podcast Hinweis

Bluesky – @vintersphrost.bsky.social
Mastodon – @vintersphrost@brettspiel.space
Boardgamearena.com – vintersphrost
Yucata.de – vintersphrost
tutti.ch: https://www.tutti.ch/de/seller?id=2079528265671090841
Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/vintersphrost/
YouTube Hörspiel Einspieler – https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCER_eNjl0R-Rzev5IMG2uufJSbXt01Mp

Almost exactly 1 year ago today, Mitchell and I recorded our first episode of the 30-minute Positively Board Gaming Podcast. Today we will record episode 52 for release next week (episode 51–focused on the mechanism of delayed gratification and custom dice–went live this morning).

As much as I enjoy chatting with Mitchell, I was nervous about adding yet another form of content to my current weekly schedule for Stonemaier Games: 2 articles, ~4 videos, 1 livecast, and 7 Instagram posts, plus monthly Rolling Realms liveplays and quarterly launch videos and design diary posts. Creating all that content takes time, as does participating in the ensuing conversations.

Also, I know from years of being a guest on podcasts that it’s really easy for a 30-minute conversation to end up more like 60+ minutes if you include the preparation, warm-up, the podcast itself, and the post-recording chat. I’ll say yes to pretty much any podcast or video chat, but after 30 minutes I start to check out as I think about all the other work I need to do (and want to do).

Despite these concerns, I’ve found myself looking forward to 30 minutes with Mitchell each week, and it seems that people have enjoyed our positivity as well. I don’t know the audio stats, but the videos average around 1,000 views with great discussions in the comments.

Here are a few key things I’ve learned and remained mindful of during the first year of Positively Board Gaming (and as an avid listener of many podcasts):

1. The delicate balance between familiarity and inclusivity. Any episode might be a listener’s 50th experience with our podcast or their 1st. I want repeat listeners to feel a sense of comfort from the podcast, like they’re just hanging out with friends. But I also want a new listener to feel welcome. We’re still navigating this balance: When do we overexplain the format (e.g., we don’t need to tell listeners that we’re going to discuss a treat of the day–they know what a treat is) and when do we underexplain it (e.g., is it relevant to tell people that neither of us knows the other person’s topic each week)?
2. The delicate balance between dialogue and monologue. Mitchell and I each bring a topic to the table each week, and we allot around 10 minutes each. 10 minutes can fly by when it’s a back-and-forth dialogue (which is my preference, as I talk to myself on camera all the time), so I try to ensure that the person who raised the topic has the time to share what they wanted to say about it.
3. The delicate balance between focus and variety. As a podcast listener, I find that I’m the most drawn to gaming episodes about 1 specific game, maybe 2 at most. Tabletop Takeaway, One-Stop Co-Op Shop, and Lens & Veil are a few that do this well, though there are others (like The Secret Cabal) that have a more varied chat before focusing on a specific game–I like that too. However, I find myself less inclined to only discuss 1 game on our podcast because there isn’t much Mitchell can say about it if he hasn’t played it too. Perhaps I’ll experiment with this in the future to see if can work.

I’m guessing that the balance I’m describing isn’t unique to us, hence why I’m sharing it here. Whether you’re a content creator or a listener/viewer, I’d love to hear your thoughts about how podcasts balance these elements and what makes keeps you coming back to the podcasts you love. Feel free to also share your favorite gaming and non-gaming podcasts!

New episodes of Positively Board Gaming are available every Thursday morning on YouTube and various podcast platforms. Also, I highly recommend the Overcast podcast app–it is heads and tails above any podcast app I’ve used in the past.

***

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.

Read more →